PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the defendant for amendment in the written statement. The defendant wants to add the following paragraph to the written statement:-

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they are the co- owners of the property no. 26, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi-110065 along with Smt. Niti Jain and Smt. Ram Kali Jain. This is also their case that Late Shri J.R. Jain, father of the defendant was appointed as attorney of the plaintiffs in respect of the aforesaid property and power of attorney has since been cancelled. This is also their case that the defendant is in occupation of a portion of the suit property as a family member of another co-owner Smt. Ram Kali Jain and this was admitted by him in a suit for partition of the suit property filed by another co-owner Smt. Niti Jain. It is also alleged that that the licence of the plaintiff has been terminated by the plaintiffs and therefore, he cannot continue in possession of the portion occupied by him in the suit property.

(3.) THE law of amendment of pleadings in our country is rather liberal in nature the legal proposition being with an amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless it is likely to prejudice the opposite party or is likely to take away a vested right which has accrued to the opposite party provided the opposite party can be compensated in terms of cost. Errors or mistakes, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or Written Statement. If there is no undue delay, no inconsistent cause of action is introduced and no vested interest or accrued legal right is affected and the application for amendment is not mala fide or will not prejudice the opposite party, the amendment should ordinarily be allowed.